NPS detection in prison: A systematic literature review of use, drug form, and analytical approaches

Abstract

This paper presents a systematic literature review on the detection of new psychoactive substances (NPS) in prison settings. It includes the most frequently reported NPS classes, the routes and forms used for smuggling, and the methods employed to analyse biological and non‐biological samples. The search was carried out using MEDLINE (EBSCO), Scopus (ELSEVIER), PubMed (NCBI), and Web of Science (Clarivate) databases, along with reports from the grey literature in line with the PRISMA‐S guidelines. A total of 2708 records were identified, of which 50 met the inclusion criteria. Findings showed the most prevalent NPS class reported in prison was synthetic cannabinoids (SCs). The most frequently reported SCs in non‐biological samples were 4F‐MDMB‐BINACA, MDMB‐4en‐PINACA, and 5F‐ADB. These were smuggled mainly through the postal services deposited on paper or herbal matrices. Concentrations of SCs detected on seized paper ranged between 0.05 and 1.17 mg/cm2. The SCs most frequently reported in biological specimens (i.e., urine, blood, saliva, and wastewater) were 5F‐MDMB‐PICA, 4F‐MDMB‐BINACA, and MDMB‐4en‐PINACA. Concentrations of SCs reported in femoral blood and serum were 0.12–0.48 ng/ml and 34–17 ng/ml, respectively. Hyphenated techniques were predominantly employed and generally successful for the detection of NPS in biological (i.e., LC‐HRMS/MS) and non‐biological samples (i.e., LC‐HRMS/MS and GC–MS). The onsite technique IMS showed promise for detecting SCs in various forms; however, immunoassays were not recommended. Future work should focus on accurate in‐field detection of SCs deposited on paper and in urine and saliva to improve real‐time decision‐making, as well as wastewater and air monitoring for overall drug use trends.

Detecting novel psychoactive substances around the world

“…The numerous seizures suggest that these substances circulate throughout Europe and are extensively used therein. Indeed, several new molecules belonging to different classes are recurrently detected in ante-mortem samples [38,39], postmortem cases [40][41][42][43][44], and nonbiological specimen [45], such as blotter [46] and soaked letters smuggled into the prisons [47,48]. The number of people who turn to NPS to temporarily escape from personal or social problems, such as unemployment, homelessness and/or incarceration, is increasing.…”

Graphene-Based Electrochemical Sensors for Psychoactive Drugs

“…Traditionally, the majority of drug-detection methods using analytical systems are undertaken using chromatography-based techniques (gas chromatography (GC) and HPLC), spectroscopy techniques (refractive index (RI), UV-Vis, fluorescence, evaporative light scattering, and NMR), or hyphenated approaches (GC-MS and HPLC-MS). Each of these techniques has their own advantages and disadvantages, but among them, three systems are more popular, especially when it comes to drug analysis: UV, fluorescence and MS [133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141]. While such techniques have proved to be reliable and allow the analysis and detection of almost all molecules of interest in various samples, they still have unsolvable issues.…”

A global review of prison drug smuggling routes and trends in the usage of drugs in prisons

“…In England and Wales, prisoners and staff have estimated 60%–90% of prisoners have used SCRAs (Ralphs et al, 2017), which has been corroborated by seized sample analysis and random urine drug screening (HM Prison & Probation Service 2019; U.K. Home Office, 2018). NPS, particularly SCRA, use has also been reported in prisons in the United States, Australia, and Brazil (Hvozdovich et al, 2020; Norman et al, 2021; Rodrigues et al, 2021; Vaccaro et al, 2022; Van Dyken et al, 2016).…”